MCP Server Box

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the file is already marked. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: defining the action, listing arguments, and specifying the return. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' into the main flow).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance is needed for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'file_id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of 'file_id' (e.g., where to find it, valid patterns). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some compensation but lacks depth.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template') and identifies the resource ('file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (like box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool or box_docgen_template_list_tool), which would require mentioning creation vs. retrieval operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client or a specific file state), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that might handle templates differently (e.g., retrieval or listing tools). Usage context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.